Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    As it relates to marriage, I figured I'd share this, a poster that was presented at the American Astronomical Society's meeting this past week. Basically, it's looking at how the end of DOMA has impacted astronomers in particular. There's nothing too revolutionary in here, I would figure, although since so many astronomers work with government agencies, those effects may be a bit more pronounced here.

    I do think it's an interesting microcosm of many of the changes going on with regard to same-sex marriage.
  2. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Well you just shattered one misconception with your post Lowie, that astronomers had sex lives :eek: ..who would have thought?
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  3. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Astronomers tend to be very in shape, know how to party, and indeed do have sex lives. None of which were what I was promised when I signed on.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  4. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Va's newly sworn - in Attorney General announced today that he believes the states gay marriage ban amendment is unconstitutional and won't defend it against legal challenges.
  5. Drac39 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 2002
    star 6
    I wonder how well that will go over with his constituents. The Supreme Court has to eventually do an all encompassing decision about gay marriage. This business about Utah shows the need for this to happen
  6. Heavy Isotope Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 10, 2013
    star 3
    To state the obvious: it really shouldn't be an issue. With a 'separation of church and state' marriage as defined by the state, and marriage as defined by a religious organization/church, should have different definitions. What I mean is that we don't have that separation therefore actions such as a gay marriage ban can take place, a marriage contract like what the state gives to straight couples, should not be legally withheld from a gay couple. A religious organization shouldn't have to consent the government to give a marriage contract, just as a government shouldn't force them to have a religious ceremony of marriage for a gay couple should the religion, specific organization, or church deem it against their beliefs.

    Unfortunately this is difficult for people to grasp, even for the supreme court.
  7. Barbecue17 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2013
    star 2
    I agree with you, but sometimes it isn't specifically just religious beliefs but moral beliefs held by the state. I think one of the definite tricky issues when the Supreme Court hears this case will be the basis for why to allow it. I'm not trying to use a slippery slope fallacy here, but I think the issue will legitimately need to be addressed as to on what grounds the state's allowance of marriage . Is it between consenting adults? If so, the Supreme Court might then open themselves up to having to address why marriage is between two consenting adults rather than three or more. About a year or so ago I sat in on an interesting legal seminar that discussed the issue of polygamy in regards to law and religious freedom that brought up some of the challenges and fears the state has in regards to polygamy (there can be issues that can lead to major tax problems and such). Once again, not trying to draw a connection between the two but simply stating the court will have to have a rationale for what they do which they'll need to be able to explain, defend, and determine what precedent it will set.
  8. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I would say if they don't have a good ability to make a case for that restriction, then there shouldn't be that restriction.
  9. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Polygamy can lead to major tax and inheritance problems due to the number of parties involved.

    Same-sex marriage does not.
  10. ophelia Cards Against Humanity Host. Ex-Mod

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2002
    star 6
    I would set the bar at the "consenting adult" level, yes. And I really don't see what's so wrong with polygamy. Surely, the legal questions can be sorted out?
  11. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I don't care if polygamy becomes legal, but conflating it with legalizing same-sex marriage is stupid, because of the questions.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  12. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, I think that is when it comes into what's the point of marriage. I would contend that the tax/inheritance things can be worked with, but if the point is letting consenting adults do what they want to, then that's not a factor. It really comes down to what is considered to be the real point of marriage in terms of the state sanctioning it. I do think the much stronger case is not from polygamy, but from incestuous relationships that are currently banned, since those don't have the issue of a new number of participants to contend with.
  13. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    I think we all agree the polygamy argument is a smokescreen to give conservatives a sense that their opposition to gay marriage isn't a bit daft. But, in reference to this and anakinsfansince1983's post, polygamy could form problems with dealing with estates. Say Jane marries John, and then she marries Judy. She has two kids by John, and John and Judy also have two kids. On her death, Jane has a non-lapsing nomination in place, directing her executor to pay 50% of her estate to John and Judy, and 50% to the two children she had with John. She leaves nothing for the children born to Judy of John. Now they're all one family, so arguably her will could be contested in a court by the children who missed out - meaning, in other words, the definition of dependent needs to change.

    Now, that's not to say it's impossible but I don't think society's liberated enough to be mature about polygamy. It's a fundamental rewrite of the family unit; in real terms, gay marriage isn't. I mean, it is if you think Jayzus wants you to hate gay people but it's still not really.
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how polygamy has worked historically.

    First of all, I'm going to assume that you actually meant to write "Say Jane marries John, and then he marries Judy", since that would make more sense with the rest of your example. In that example, there is no legal relationship between Jane and Judy. They are not married to each other, and do not have any obligations towards each other. John is married to each of them, nut they are not all married to each other. As such, there's no legal basis for Judy's children to contest the will, as they have no legal claim on Jane's estate.

    Of course, all of that would potentially change if, in addition to marrying John, Jane also marries Judy (assuming the legality of same-sex marriage in this hypothetical). That would then create a legal relationship between Jane and Judy, which could potentially give Judy's children claim on Jane's estate.

    Remember, the legal prohibitions on polygamy only prohibit a single person from being married to more than one other person. A repeal of that prohibition wouldn't suddenly make "sister wives" married to each other. They would simply both be married to the same man, nothing more.
    Lowbacca_1977 likes this.
  15. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    Families can lead to major tax and inheritance problems due to the number of parties involved.
    Lowbacca_1977 likes this.
  16. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    True, but the only reason to have government involved in marriage at all us to gave simplified legal contracts for inheritance and power of attorney.
    Heavy Isotope likes this.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Hi @Kimball_Kinnison; no, I meant it the way I said. I don't see why a woman couldn't chose to marry a man and another woman. I support same-sex rights and eschewing traditional gender roles. ;)
  18. Barbecue17 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2013
    star 2
    Yeah, we actually just got some flyer in the mail this afternoon that was covered by quotes equating the two (along with multiple other things).

    I don't think they're the same issue, but I'm just curious how the Supreme Court will eventually word their decision.
  19. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I don't see what's confusing about that at all. She has two children that are biologically her own, and she has two step-children. Is this not a situation that we already deal with? Or did we get rid of remarriage when I wasn't looking? What makes this different from circumstances that already occur?
    Last edited by Lowbacca_1977, Feb 4, 2014
  20. Barbecue17 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2013
    star 2
    I imagine it's less to do with difficulty of issues of estates and such (which can always be tricky anyways) and more with issues of taxes when someone starts gaining multiple dependents. I'm not a tax expert by any means, but I do know that in Utah there has been some work done on how taxes would work in these types of situations. I believe they might be using some of the rules that they use for communal living groups to create polygamist tax policies.
  21. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Step children/step parents can be a hot mess when it comes to laws about property, custody, inheritance, and so on. I'm a step-father myself. Navigating that land mine is a thing I have on my "Grown Up Stuff I Don't Wanna Tackle, But Should" list.
    Last edited by Jedi Merkurian, Feb 4, 2014
  22. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    Interesting; so in the polygamous scenario I described, would the children not biologically her own be considered stepchildren? I like the idea, I really do. But as Merk noted, she can still prioritise her biological offspring in dispersing her estate; if the step kids contested this, they could.

    We know that estates, especially money in estates, brings out the worst in people. Can you imagine what it might do to a family?
  23. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    If the deceased's will prioritizes her biological children, the step-children should have no legal basis for contesting it, right?
  24. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Personally I don't see any group of polygamists as politically powerful enough to enact legislative change to the laws to marry, we'll have to see what happens in court as a result of all these decisions. If it does happen, it will be very different from "traditional" polygamy and be more of a legal recognition of polyamorus relationships. Again Utah is at this very strange crossroads on this issue, with large populations of fundamentalist LDS polygamists and also a surprising number of secular polyamorists and swingers. For now it is all about decriminalization of adult relationships. Since most of the people involved have such different types of relationships, that step will be the "breakdown of marriage" in that government will get out of the business and just allow people to create their own unique legal contracts to represent the unique relationships they may have. At least here in Utah, I think young conservatives will be more open to libertarian arguments, and while may hold to private religious conservative family relationships, will not bother trying to preserve their ideals of state solutions.

    But that said it is tough to predict, I know ex-FLDS sister wives who would still like to send men to jail for having more than one wife.
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    It depends on your applicable law and how it defines a dependent.

    In Australia, under the SIS Act 1994, a dependent is considered "in relation to a person, includes the spouse of the person, any child of the person and any person with whom the person has an interdependency relationship."

    The court would have to consider in my scenario that the step-children are dependents.

    But regardless, I think Espaldy is right in saying there's no real lobby group powerful enough to change the social view of polygamy. So it's an interesting exercise, and shows there's not really an insurmountable impediment to it, but we're just not ready yet.
    Last edited by Ender Sai, Feb 4, 2014